W36 - Hitting the Essence

Last week I read a book—Hit the Essence. It can be simply summarized in two parts. First it explains the “essence,” meaning the fundamental attributes of things, the root causes of problems, and the underlying logic behind phenomena. Then it covers “hitting” the essence, providing methods: boldly hypothesize and carefully verify.

The book is full of methodologies and models. Having practiced fundamentals for a couple of years helped me map many abstractions to concrete realities. I enjoyed the read; it often felt like being jolted awake. Many vague or entrenched ways of thinking and working that I use daily found clear expression in the book, along with well-tested models and methodologies.

For example, I found that the natural way I troubleshoot production issues can largely be summarized by the “Mueller Five Methods.”

Another example is how to define things: what makes a good definition. Normally I rely on intuition plus logic, but I couldn’t clearly articulate what that intuition or logic actually is. The book cites Aristotle’s idea of definition: definition = genus (what’s shared) + differentia (what’s distinct). Looking at more examples makes this suddenly clear. For instance, one could define a human as a featherless, two-legged upright animal, or as a rational animal.

I also seem to have found the prototype diagram of Amazon’s growth flywheel—the system loop diagram. The book explains finding root causes through systemic analysis. Its theoretical basis is systems theory, and many concepts align. The primary analytical tool used is the system loop diagram, which shows how a system actually operates. From such a diagram you can read which elements compose the system, whether relationships between elements are reinforcing loops or balancing loops, what the input-output pendulum is, and what the time delays look like.

In form it closely resembles Amazon’s growth flywheel; on closer comparison, the growth flywheel appears to be a subset of the system loop diagram. The growth flywheel focuses only on reinforcing loops: input metrics represent positive inputs and it omits balancing loops. For example, certain actions can improve user experience, which then drives market share growth. Often this is a chain of reinforcing logic, but market share growth is also affected by external factors like market size—this balancing logic is hidden.

I understand the reason for this is to make the tool more usable by focusing on the core: concentrating only on the core logic of product growth. If you draw it as a complete system, the added complexity raises the barrier to understanding steeply. The tool itself would be limited in expression and dissemination; if an idea has no low-cost way to spread, no matter how robust it is, it won’t proliferate widely.